Fair division of assets in this situation

[McDonalds35]

Looking for advice and whether court would be best in this situation. Friend is going through mediation and he offered his ex 30/70 split of equity and 50/50 share of pension. There is a difference in earnings but DC are over 18 so I think this is more than generous. His ex seems determined to punish him and won’t agree to this. He’s currently paying all of the bills for the house as well as having to pay for his current rental property so is struggling financially. He initially agreed to do this on the understanding that the house would be put on the market which she has now gone back on. The ex expects him to take on a new mortgage because he earns more and for her to be able to buy a house outright. He doesn’t want to pay court costs or to continue paying bills for two houses for much longer but he also doesn’t want to be forced to take on a large mortgage. He has a solicitor but obviously they gain financially if it does go to court. His solicitor did say that if the court awards a similar settlement to the one he offered then ex will have to pay his court costs. Would be get a better deal if it goes to court?

No one can say

Will depend on ( among other things)

Length of marriage
Earnings in both parties
Assets available
Earning potential
Whether one party earnings took a hit due to child rearing etc and foe how long
Ages
Needs of both parties and abilities to meet those with the assets available

Etc etc

In a long marriage 50:50 is starting point on all assets.

If her earnings are lower because she did the bulk of childcare and took a hit on her career then the fact that the children are over 18 is irrelevant surely. Her contribution to his career success doesn’t evaporate when the children become legally adults.

Perhaps your ‘friend’ should sort this out with his legal advisors and you should back away from a situation which has nothing to do with you and about which you are only hearing one side. Why are you so invested in this man’s divorce?

Is she won't agree or negotiate then court is the only option

On the face of it, a fairly ok offer.

The age of the children is relevant because it means she has no dependents and can move to a smaller property. Basically a 1 bedroom flat. If she able to work, I.e. there are no age or disability issues, then she can work. It will be assumed she can generate an income even in a minimum wage job. She can get a mortgage.

Does 70% equity buy her a home in which she can live as a single person? If so she is pushing her luck.

He should accept that he needs to go to court. I’d just push ahead and let her face the consequences.

@LemonTT
Yes 70% would definitely allow her to buy more than a flat outright as there is a lot of equity. In the case where there are no dependants, why should one person get a house outright when the other has to take on a huge mortgage? That doesn’t seem fair to me! Thanks to those who have given helpful responses, I’ll pass them on. I am just trying to help because I have never heard of anyone getting more than that and I tried looking online but there doesn’t seem to be much information about settlements.

Because one party may have had significant earnings loss, may have not worked while raising children, may have been disadvantaged so now their mortgage raising ability is less etc

Those factors would be given consideration to reach a fair outcome

But will be determined by the factors listed above